Google antitrust trial verdict: Search giant avoids breakup

On September 2, 2025, American justice rendered a long-awaited verdict in the antitrust lawsuit opposing the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to Google. Accused of monopolistic practices in the online search sector, the technology giant, a subsidiary of Alphabet, escapes the most drastic measure: the dismantling of its operations. This decision, described as a "massive victory" by some analysts, allows Google to keep its empire intact while imposing some concessions. In this article, we return to the details of the Google antitrust verdict, its implications for the tech industry, and future perspectives.

Context of the antitrust lawsuit against Google

The antitrust lawsuit against Google began several years ago, with accusations brought by the DOJ asserting that the company illegally maintained a monopoly on the online search market. In August 2024, federal judge Amit Mehta had already ruled Google guilty of acting as a monopoly to preserve its dominant position, notably through exclusive distribution agreements. These agreements, involving partners like Apple, enabled Google to capture more than 90% of online search queries, according to estimates.

The DOJ sought severe sanctions, including the separation of Chrome (Google's web browser) and potentially Android, to restore fair competition. These measures aimed to break what authorities consider excessive control over the digital ecosystem.

The verdict: No breakup, but mandatory concessions

In his final decision rendered on September 2, 2025, Judge Amit Mehta opted for a more measured approach. Google is permitted to retain Chrome and its other key assets, thus avoiding a breakup that could have reshaped the tech industry. Instead, the company must share its search results and certain data with competitors, such as data used to train its RankEmbedBERT algorithm (70 days of logs and evaluations made by Google's Quality Raters) to foster more balanced competition.

A key point of the verdict concerns distribution contracts. Google can continue to pay its partners to promote its services on their devices, including the famous $20 billion annual contract with Apple, which is not called into question. This partnership, which makes Google the default search engine on iPhones and Safari, remains intact, to Alphabet's great relief.

Nevertheless, the verdict rendered by American justice is not a blank check for Google. Several corrective measures aimed at limiting the company's anticompetitive practices have indeed been imposed.

Here are the concrete concessions demanded of Google following this verdict:

1. Simplification of changing the default search engine

The most significant concession is the obligation imposed on the search engine to facilitate the choice of an alternative engine for users. Concretely, this translates to:

• Implementation of a "choice screen": When setting up a new Android device or first using Chrome, users will be presented with a screen offering them a selection of several search engines. They can thus choose an alternative to Google (such as DuckDuckGo, Qwant, or Bing) in a single click. This measure is inspired by what has already been implemented in Europe under pressure from the European Commission.
• Prohibition of strict exclusivity contracts: Google will no longer be allowed to impose contractual clauses that prevent smartphone manufacturers or telecommunications operators from pre-installing competing search services.

2. Increased transparency on distribution agreements

Although the emblematic $20 billion contract with Apple has been saved, justice demands greater transparency on this type of partnership. Google must thus communicate to regulatory authorities the financial details and technical clauses of its main distribution agreements, which make it the default search engine. The objective is to enable regulators to monitor whether these agreements do not create insurmountable barriers for newcomers.

3. Interoperability of advertising data

To tackle Google's dominance in the online advertising market, the verdict imposes measures to facilitate the migration of advertisers to competing platforms. The Mountain View firm must thus develop tools allowing an advertiser to easily export its performance and campaign data (history, keywords, bidding strategies) to competing ad networks. Previously, the cost and complexity of this migration left advertisers captive to the Google Ads ecosystem.

4. Limiting self-referencing in search results

The court also imposed constraints to limit Google's tendency to favor its own services (Google Flights, Google Shopping, etc.) in its search result pages. Thus, Google can no longer technologically link the use of one of its advertising services to the preferential promotion of another of its services in search results. Algorithms will need to be adjusted to ensure fairer treatment of competing services, even if the verdict does not go so far as to impose a functional separation of these services.

Google is considering appealing, with the American giant expressing concerns about how these concessions could impact what it believes is the quality of its services for users and respect for their privacy (Google being very concerned about user privacy, as everyone knows!).

We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we're reviewing the decision closely.

Implications for Google and the online search market

This outcome of the Google antitrust lawsuit is perceived as a significant victory for the company led by Sundar Pichai. Immediately following the announcement, Alphabet stock jumped 7% on the stock exchange, reflecting investor confidence in Google's business model resilience.

For the market, mandatory concessions could open the door to greater competition. Rivals like Microsoft (with Bing) or startups could benefit from increased access to Google's data, potentially spurring innovation in online search. However, without a breakup, Google maintains its dominance, with nearly nine out of ten queries handled by its engine.

In the longer term, this verdict could influence other ongoing antitrust investigations against Google, notably in Europe where the European Union already imposes strict regulations through the Digital Markets Act (DMA).